Thursday, March 13, 2014

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION IN POLITICAL LAW



PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION IN POLITICAL LAW

1.      Which of the following is correct about eminent domain? (a) Expropriation (b) condemnation (c) regulate property (d) none of the above (e) all of the above.
2.      Which is NOT correct concerning eminent domain? -(a) like police power because it is also inherent (b) taking of public property (c) payment of just compensation (d) a necessity (e) public use
3.      Eminent domain cannot be used in taking private property for –(a) historical sites (b) piers (c) cemeteries (d) all of the above (e) none of the above
4.      A municipality may exercise eminent domain. Which of the following is INCORRECT? (a) the mayor can go to the owner and make an offer to buy (b) the Sanggunian must first authorize the mayor through a Resolution passed by it (c) the municipality must file an expropriation proceeding in court (d) the municipality must deposit in court 15% of the fair market value  of the property (e) the value of the property shall be determined by the court.
5.      The exercise of police power is lodged to (a) delegated to the lgu’s (b) legislative branch of government (c) judicial branch (d) executive branch (e) Congress
6.      Which of the following is not an essential requisite before an LGU can exercise the power of eminent domain? (a) An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private property (b) The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless (c) There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9 Article III of the Constitution and other pertinent laws. (d) A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted (e) there must be a certification from the Treasurer that money is available for payment.

7.       Which is not correct? (a) Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator (b) The measure is the taker’s gain (c) The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" an(d) the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample. (e) none  of the above.
8.      Lines of NAPOCOR passed through the property of Mrs B. The payment of compensation shall be (a) the easement value only since not the whole lot is used by Napocor (b) the full value of the property (c) dependent on the court (d) gauged  on the loss suffered by Mrs. B (e) based on the current tax declaration of B.
9.      In eminent domain, the just compensation to which the owner of a condemned property is entitled is generally the  (a) market value (b) assessed value (c) full value (d)  whole value  (e) all of the above.
10.  Rule 67 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court reveals that expropriation proceedings are comprised of two stages. Which of the following belongs to the second stage? (a) determination of authority to exercise the power of eminent domain (b) determination of just compensation by the Sanggunian concerned (c) appointment of three commissioners to determine valuation (d) order of condemnation (e) determination that the property is fit for public use.
11.  Which of the following is not taxable by the local government unit  pursuant to RA 7160? (A) non-stock/non-profit hospitals (b) cooperatives (c) non-profit educational  institutions (d) none of the above (e) all of the above.

12.  Which of the following is considered as the power to destroy? (a) eminent domain (b) police power (c) taxation (d) all of the above (e) none of the above.

13.  Which of the following is not correct with respect to consent to search? (a) Consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred and must be shown by clear and convincing evidence (b) the consent must be unequivocal, specific, intelligently given and uncontaminated by any duress or coercion (c) The burden of proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given lies with the person searched.(d) Acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights is not to be presumed and courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights(e) that the person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such right.

14.  The general rule is that a search may be conducted by law enforcers only on the strength of a valid search warrant is settled. Which of the following is not an exception thereto?(a) consented searches; (b) as an incident to a lawful arrest; (c) searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration, customs, and drug laws; (d) searches of  vehicles (e) where the prohibited articles are in "plain view

15.  Which of the following is INCORRECT concerning the stop and frisk operation? (a) the  police officer  stops a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband (b) The police officer  introduces himself and make initial inquiries, approach and restrain a person who manifests unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check the latter’s outer clothing for possibly concealed weapons(c) The apprehending police officer must have a genuine reason, in accordance with the police officer’s experience and the surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to be held has weapons (or contraband) concealed about him (d)  an arrest should precede the search for this principle to apply (e) the accused  exhibits a suspicious behavior and in fact attempts to flee after the police officer had identified himself.

16.  A police officer armed with a search warrant can  search (a)  the house immediately and even break a door open (b) only when there are two witnesses inside the house (c) the house even when there is only one occupant present (d) provided he is accompanied by a Barangay captain or tanod (e) only with the permission of the owner of the house.

17.  A search warrant was issued by Judge Herrera in connection with an undocketed criminal case for estafa, falsification, insurance fraud, and tax evasion, against the Asian Surety and Insurance Co., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, with principal office at Room 200 Republic Supermarket Bldg., Rizal Avenue, Manila. Which of the following statements is true? (a) the search warrant is valid since it is the judge who issued it (b) the search warrant is invalid since it is not particular or vague (c) the search warrant is valid since it refers to crimes which are closely related to each other (d) it is invalid since it was issued upon probable cause not in connection with one specific offense (e) it is invalid since the cases are not yet docketed.

18.  Zones of privacy are likewise recognized and protected in our laws. Which of the following is not considered as a zone of privacy? (a) the Intellectual Property Code  (b)  extension lines of a telephone (c)  the privacy of letters and other private communications (d) Anti-Wiretapping Law (e) bank deposits.

19.  The history of press freedom dates back to the English Magna Carta, promulgated in--- (a) 1512 (b)1215 (c) 1521 (d)1152 (e) 1216---, which established the principle that not even the lawmaker should be above the law. Through the years, many treatises on press freedom arose in reaction to various measures taken to curtail it.

20.  In the United States, press freedom was first put into organic law  to its Constitution, declaring that "Congress shall make no law x x x abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." This set in stone the basis for virtually all contemporary laws and jurisprudence on the subject of press freedom. This is known as the (a) first (b) second (c) third (d) fourth (e) fifth –amendment.

21.  Indeed, freedom of speech cannot be absolute and unconditional. In legal, political, and philosophical contexts, it is always regarded as liable to be overridden by important countervailing interests. Which of the following is applicable in limiting the freedom of speech?  (a) state security (b)  public order (c)  safety of individual citizens (d)  none of the above (e)  all of the above

22.  Which of the following is not CORRECT about police power? (a) the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, education, good order, safety, or the general welfare of the people (b) that inherent and plenary power in the state which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society (c) to enact such laws in relation to persons and property as may promote public health, public morals, public safety and the general welfare of each inhabitant (d) establish for the intercourse of citizen with citizen those rules of good manners and good neighborhood calculated to prevent conflict of rights (e) the powers of the people inherent in every sovereignty to the extent of its dominions.

23.  What statement below does not describe a Constitution? (a) body of rules and maxims (b) framework of a system of government (c) creates or confers basic rights (d) basic & paramount law (e) definition of power.

24.  Which of the following should not be found in the row? (a) actual case or controversy (b) lis mota  (c) earliest opportunity (d) substantive distinction (e)  injured party

25.  Which of the following belongs to the constitution of sovereignty? (a) political rights (b) civil rights (c) procedure (d) organization (e) limitations.

26.  Which is the odd one out? (a) verba  (b) anima (c) magis (d) exclusio (e) legis

27.  Which of the following is considered a proper party? (a) a physician questioning the constitutionality of a law prohibiting the use of contraceptives (b) a taxpayer questioning the validity of a law banning export of women labor (c) an accountant challenging in a qou warranto proceeding a doctor who had been appointed as Medical Examiner (d) a senator challenging the validity of the compulsory drug testing bill (e) a rallyist questioning the validity of his arrest.

28.  Which of the following regulate property rights? (a) police power (b) eminent domain (c) taxation (d) a & b  (e) b & e

29.  Which of the following is NOT considered as a test of police power? (a) public interest (b) reasonable means (c) lawful subject (d) conformity to law (e) particular class.

30.  Which of the following was declared constitutional?  A law which (a) prohibits the use of shoddy for the making of mattresses (b)  requires blood testing before a marriage license has to be issued (c)  prohibits the transport of carabao (d)  requires compulsory drug testing to government employees (e)  prohibits casino (PAGCOR) in their province.

31.  Which of the following is incorrect concerning the power of taxation? (a) enforced (b)proportional (c) method (d) contract  (e) duty.

32.  Which is true about the taxation powers of the local government units? (a) inherent power (b) valid delegation (c) direct authority (d) unlimited (e) confiscatory

33.  Which of the following describes substantive due process? (a) Intrinsic validity (b) manner (c) valid governmental objective (d) a & c but not b (e) a & b but not c.

34.  Which of the following violates substantive due process? (a) a  municipal ordinance which requires all laundry establishments to issue receipts in English and Spanish (b) a law which disallowed Chinese aliens to engage in retail trade (c) a law which requires preventive suspension of government officials facing graft and corruption charges (d) a municipal ordinance that prohibits cabarets & massage parlors in Ermita area (e) a law that prohibits fishing from on March and April of every year.

35.  Which is violative of due process? (a) a teacher deprived of her right to have counsel in an administrative case (b) an accused who is deprived of his right to appeal due to the negligence of his counsel (c) an accused who was arrested without a warrant caught in flagrante delicto (d) an employee caught stealing inside the office and dismissed immediately (e) a judge who does not inhibit himself in a case when asked to do so.

36.  In which of the following situations is notice and hearing  required? (a) cancellation of passport (b) preventive suspension (c) distraint of untaxed properties (d) abatement of nuisance per accidens (e) padlocking of theaters showing obscene movies.

37.  Which of the following is not necessary in administrative due process? (a) the right to a full blown hearing which includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence (b) the tribunal must consider the evidenced presented (c) the decision must have something to support itself (d) the evidence must be substantial (e) the tribunal must act on its own independent consideration.

38.  Which of the following is odd? (a) germane to the purpose of the law (b) be limited to existing conditions (c) based on substantial distinctions (d) not be limited to existing conditions only (e) not be arbitrary.

39.  Which of the following is not considered as a personal determination of probable cause? (a) the judge may rely on the certification of the fiscal who conducted the preliminary investigation (b) the judge may rely on the Information/complaint found in the records of the case (c) the judge listens personally to the persons under oath applying for a search warrant (d) the judge must ask searching questions and answers (e) the judge must read carefully the affidavits attached on the record of the case.

40.  X is appointed both as manager of a government corporation and mayor of his city. The appointment as manager was declared illegal. Which of the following is true? (a) he must reimburse the government of his salary as manager (b) all the contracts signed by him as manager are invalidated (c) all appointments signed by him when he was manager are invalid (d) none of the above (e) all of the above.

41.  Which of the following complies with the “plain view doctrine”? (a)  a prior valid intrusion in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent (d) the plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search (e) all of the above.

42.  Which should not belong to the group? (a) search incidental to a lawful arrest (b) search of moving vehicles (c) customs search (d) routine airport security (e)arrests effected in hot pursuits.

43.  Rafael S. Ortanez filed with the Regional Trial Court a complaint for annulment of marriage with damages against  Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez, on grounds of lack of marriage license and/or psychological incapacity of the petitioner. Among the exhibits offered by private respondent were three (3) cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations between petitioner and unidentified persons. Which of the following is correct? (a) the said tapes are inadmissible absolutely (b) Tape recordings are not inadmissible per se (c) they can be admitted in evidence for certain purposes, depending on how they are presented (d) Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200. (e) all of the above.

44.  An interisland passenger ship, M/V Super Ferry 5, sailed from Manila to Iligan City. At about 3:00 a.m.  the vessel was about to dock at the port of Iligan City when its security officer,  received a complaint from passenger about her missing jewelry. She suspected one of her co-passengersas the culprit. Diesmo(security officer) and four (4) other members of the vessel security force accompanied Canoy to search for the suspect whom they later found at the economy section. The suspect was identified as the accused, Basher Bongcarawan. The accused was informed of the complaint and was invited to go back to cabin no. 106. With his consent, he was bodily searched, but no jewelry was found. He was then escorted by two (2) security agents back to the economy section to get his baggage. The accused took a Samsonite suitcase and brought this back to the cabin. When requested by the security, the accused opened the suitcase, revealing a brown bag and small plastic packs containing white crystalline substance. Suspecting the substance to be "shabu," the security personnel immediately reported the matter to the ship captain and took pictures of the accused beside the suitcase and its contents.
Which of the following statements is correct? (a) Samsonite suitcase containing the methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" was forcibly opened and searched without his consent, and hence, in violation of his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.
(b) Any evidence acquired pursuant to such unlawful search and seizure, he claims, is inadmissible in evidence against him
(c) the baggage  was searched by the vessel security personnel. It was only after they found "shabu" inside the suitcase that they called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance. The search and seizure of the suitcase and the contraband items was therefore carried out without government intervention, and hence, the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure does not apply
(d) the search and seizure performed by the vessel security personnel should be considered as one conducted by the police authorities for like the latter, the former are armed and tasked to maintain peace and order
(e) he is not the owner of the Samsonite suitcase and he had no knowledge that the same contained "shabu." He submits that without knowledge or intent to possess the dangerous drug, he cannot be convicted of the crime charged.
45. Routine inspections at checkpoints are not regarded as violative of an individual's right against unreasonable search. Which of the following does not demonstrate this principle? (a) where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds (b) simply looks into a vehicle (c) flashes a light therein without opening the car's doors (4) where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search (d) where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual inspection (e) where the routine check is conducted in any area.

PART II: Case Problem (5 points)
45. (G.R. No. 156320  Abenes v. People)The prosecution showed that three days prior to the May 11, 1998 national and local elections, the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Pagadian City, through its Company Commander Major Pedronisto Quano, created a team composed of seven policemen with a directive to establish and man a checkpoint in Barangay Danlugan at said city, for the purpose of enforcing the Gun Ban which was then being implemented by the COMELEC. SPO3 Cipriano Q. Pascua was the designated team leader.
The team proceeded to Barangay Danlugan, arriving thereat at 8:15 in the morning of May 8, 1998. Team leader SPO3 Pascua coordinated with the Barangay Chairman of Danlugan, and the team put up a road block with the marking "COMELEC GUN BAN". Vehicles passing through the road block were required by the team to stop and their occupants were then politely requested to alight in order to allow routine inspection and checking of their vehicles. Motorists who refused the request were not forced to do so.
At about 10:30 in the morning of the same day, a red Tamaraw FX trying to pass through the check point was stopped by the team and directed to park at the side of the road. As the occupants within the vehicle could not be seen through its tinted windows, SPO1 Eliezer Requejo, a member of the team, knocked on the vehicle’s window and requested the occupants to step down for a routine inspection. The eight occupants, which included the accused-appellant Rodolfo Abenes who is the Barangay Chairman of Tawagan Norte, Labangan, Zamboanga Del Sur, alighted from the vehicle. At this juncture, SPO1 Requejo and SPO3 Pascua noticed that a holstered firearm was tucked at the right waist of Abenes. The firearm was readily visible to the policemen; it was not covered by the shirt worn by Abenes. Abenes was then asked by SPO3 Pascua whether he had a license and authority to carry the firearm, and whether his possession was exempted from the Gun Ban being enforced by the COMELEC. Accused answered in the affirmative. The policemen then demanded for the pertinent documents to be shown to support Abenes’ claim. He could not show any. Hence, SPO1 Requejo confiscated Abenes’ firearm, which was later identified as a Norinco .45 caliber pistol bearing Serial No. 906347, including its magazine containing seven live ammunitions.
Questions: (a) Given the circumstances, and the evidence adduced, was the check-point validly established?(b) was the petitioner’s constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure violated? (c) Is the plain view doctrine applicable in this case? Why?


MIDTERM EXAMINATION IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW





1. a) What are the requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy?
            b) When does jeopardy of punishment attach?

2. Accused is charged under RPC 189, (1) for selling pumps to which he had given the appearance of those of another’s.  Since there was no proof that he had manufactured the pumps himself, he was acquitted.  However, he was ordered prosecuted under RPC 188, (2) for knowingly selling goods with fraudulent trademark.  He pleaded double jeopardy.  Decide.

3After trial on the merits, the accused was acquitted for insufficiency of the evidence against him in the cases for murder and frustrated murder and on the finding, in the illegal carrying of firearm, that the act charged did not constitute a violation of law.  But the State through a petition for certiorari would want his acquittal reversed.  Decide whether the petition for certiorari is proper.

4.What is the meaning of a “supervening event”? What are the 3 requirements for the supervening event principle to apply?

5. Rosalinda is the daughter of Telesforo. She was born on May 16, 1934 in Western Australia (which adopts the jus soli principle). Her mother is an Australian citizen named Teresa.Telesforo was born in Daet, Camarines Norte on January 5, 1879, (where he registered as a Spanish citizen) but died in Australia at the age of 80. Rosalinda is a holder of an Australian passport and had with her an Australian Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR) in 1988.
She went back to the Philippines, lived in their ancestral house in Daet, married and had children to a Filipino husband.
            She ran for a congressional seat and won in the district of Daet.
            Her rival files a disqualification case citing:
            1.That Rosalinda is not a Filipino citizen hence disqualified for public office.
            2.That under section 40 of the Local Government Code, “The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position x x x (d) those with dual citizenship.”
            Rule on the two issues above cited.

6. State whether there is double jeopardy in the following situations:

a. In 1992 Jose is charged before the Provincial Prosecutor’s office with Murder. During the preliminary investigation no witnesses from the private complainants appeared. Another date is fixed. Again no witness appeared. The Prosecutor then resolved to dismiss the case on the ground that there is no evidence to hold the accused for trial.
            In 1998, the private complainant appears and tell the prosecutor that his witnesses have surfaced and are now willing to testify. The Prosecutor set the case for another preliminary investigation. Jose files a motion to dismiss alleging that he cannot be tried for the same offense, as he is not put in double jeopardy, which is contrary to our constitution.

b. During the trial for Homicide, after he had been duly arraigned, the accused X moves for postponement for the reason that he has no counsel. The Judge granted his motion and set the case for trial. On the next hearing date, the Prosecution moved for postponement as its witness is not in Court. The Judge warned the Prosecutor that on the next hearing if he has no witness, the case shall be dismissed. On the next trial date, the Prosecutor moves for another postponement as he has not witness. The accused thru counsel moves to dismiss the case invoking his right to speedy trial. The Judge granted the same. The prosecution moves for a reconsideration. The judge did not reconsider.
            Two weeks after the said dismissal, the Prosecutor refiled the  same case for Homicide. The accused moves for the dismissal of the case invoking his constitutional right against double jeopardy.
            Is the accused correct? Explain your answer.

c. Maria is charged with two counts of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). Considering that the penalty is lesser, she pleaded guilty to the charge and applied for probation. While her probation was pending, the Prosecutor filed another case for Estafa, involving the same transaction which lead to the filing of the BP 22 case, that is Maria issued checks in exchange for the rice which she obtained from Josefa.
            Maria contends that the Estafa cases should be dismissed as she is already put in double jeopardy.
Rule on Maria’s contention. Is she correct?

7. From mainland China where he was born of Chinese parents, Mr. Chan Sing Kha migrated to the Philippines in 1894.As of April 11, 1899, he was already a permanent resident of the Philippine Islands and continued to reside in this country until his death. During his lifetime and when he was already in the Philippines, he married Charing, a Filipina (his salegirl) with whom he begot one son, named Ho Pia Kha, who was born on October 18, 1897. Ho Pia got married (to his classmate) Mirtil, a Filipina, and one of their children is Todas Kha, who was born on September 27, 1936. Todas finished Commerce and engaged in business.
            In the May 1989 election, Todas Kha ran for and was elected Congressman. His rival candidate, Gavino Ang, filed a qou warranto or disqualification case against him on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen. It was pointed out that Todas Kha did not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of 21.
            Decide whether Todas Kha suffers from disqualification or not.

8. In 1925, Victoriano Chiu , a Chinese citizen and father of the  William Chiu, was elected to and held the office of municipal councilor of the town of Plaridel, Occidental Misamis. This fact is sufficiently established by the evidence submitted to the Court; by the findings of the National Bureau of Investigation cited in Opinion No. 27, s. 1948, of the Secretary of Justice; and as admitted by respondents in their pleadings. It is also shown and admitted that at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, petitioner William Chiu was still a minor. Questions: (1) Is Victorian Chiu considered a Filipino under the 1935 constitution? (2) What is the citizenship of William Tiu? Explain.

9. Petitioner Joevanie Arellano Tabasa was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. In 1968, when petitioner was seven years old, his father, Rodolfo Tabasa, became a naturalized citizen of the United States.  By derivative naturalization (citizenship derived from that of another as from a person who holds citizenship by virtue of naturalization), petitioner also acquired American citizenship.  
Petitioner arrived in the Philippines on August 3, 1995, and was admitted as a “balikbayan” for one year. Thereafter, petitioner was arrested and detained by agent Wilson Soluren of the BID on May 23, 1996, pursuant to BID Mission Order No. LIV-96-72 in Baybay, Malay, Aklan; subsequently, he was brought to the BID Detention Center in Manila.  X x x        The U.S. Department of State has revoked U.S. passport 053854189 issued on June 10, 1994 in San Francisco, California under the name of Joevanie Arellano Tabasa, born on February 21, 1959 in the Philippines. Mr. Tabasa’s passport has been revoked because he is the subject of an outstanding federal warrant of arrest issued on January 25, 1996 by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, for violation of Section 1073, “Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution,” of Title 18 of the United States Code.  He is charged with one count of a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of California Penal Code, Section 12021(A)(1), and one count of sexual battery, in violation of California Penal Code, Section 243.4 (D).xxx Petitioner filed before the CA a Petition for Habeas Corpus with Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order on May 29, 1996, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 40771.  Tabasa alleged that he was not afforded due process; that no warrant of arrest for deportation may be issued by immigration authorities before a final order of deportation is made; that no notice of the cancellation of his passport was made by the U.S. Embassy; that he is entitled to admission or to a change of his immigration status as a non-quota immigrant because he is married to a Filipino citizen as provided in Section 13, paragraph (a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940; and that he was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines prior to his derivative naturalization when he was seven years old due to the naturalization of his father, Rodolfo Tabasa, in 1968. 
At the time Tabasa filed said petition, he was already 35 years old.
X x x on June 13, 1996, petitioner filed a Supplemental Petition alleging that he had acquired Filipino citizenship by repatriation in accordance with Republic Act No. 8171 (RA 8171), and that because he is now a Filipino citizen, he cannot be deported or detained by the respondent Bureau.
Questions: (1) Has petitioner validly reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA 8171? (2) If there is no valid repatriation, then he can be summarily deported for his being an undocumented alien? Explain.

10. (a) Citizenship proceedings is “sui generis”. Explain.
 (b) .  In a long line of decisions, this Court said that every time the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as res judicata; hence, it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand.  State the exception to this rule.
ANSWER:. Citizenship proceedings, as aforestated, are a class of its own, in that, unlike other cases, res judicata does not obtain as a matter of course.  In a long line of decisions, this Court said that every time the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as res judicata; hence, it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand.  Res judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship only if the following concur:
1.      a person’s citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party;
2.      the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof; and
3.      the finding or citizenship is affirmed by this Court.





Quizzers in Constitutional law


Quizzers in Constitutional law



Part one: Bill of rights



DUE PROCESS CLAUSE:
1.In a case before the Bureau of Lands, Mendoza was not made a party. Since the decision adversely affected him, he appealed to the Office of the President which eventualy decided the case against him. He now contends that he was denied due process because he was not given notice when the case was still before the Bureau of Lands.Decide.

Answer: The fact that he had a chance to be heard in the appeal before the Office of the President makes up for whatever may have been wanting earlier. There is no violation of due process. (Asst. Executive Secretary v. CA, G.R. No. 76761, Jan. 8, 1989).

2.Pursuant to P.D. No. 101 ordering the fixing of just reasonable standards, classification, regulation, practices, measurements, or service to be furnished, imposed, observed and followed by operators of public utility motor vehicles, the BOT and BLT promulgated a regulation to the effect that no car beyond six years shall be operated as a taxi. Petitioners contend that procedural due process was violated because position papers were not asked of them and because there was no public hearing prior to the issuance of the regulation. Decide.

ANSWER: The Board has a wide range of choices for gathering information or data and is not bound to make use of all of them. Moreover, previous notice and hearing is required in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings but not in the promulgation of general rules.(Taxicab Operators v. BOT, G.R. No. 59234 Sept. 30, 1982, p. 37 Bernas).

3.Petitioner avers that to require him to satisfy his civil liability in order to continue to avail of the benefits of probation is to violate the constitutional proscription against unequal protection of the law. He says only moneyed probationers will be able to benefit from probation if satisfaction of civil liability is made a condition. Decide.

ANSWER: Payment of the civil liability is not made a condition precedent to probation. If it were, then perhaps there might be some basis to petitioner’s assertion that only moneyed convicts may avail of the benefits of probation. In this case however, petitioner’s application for probation had already been granted. Satisfaction of his civil liability was not made a requirement before he could avail of probation, but was a condition for his continued enjoyment of the same. It is a consequence of petitioner’s having been convicted of crime and petitioner is bound to satisfy this obligation regardless of whether or not he is placed under probation. (Soriano v. CA. G.R. No. 123936, March 4, 1999).

4.Are there any forms of speech, which are not protected by the Constitution?

ANSWER: These are libel and obscenity… such utterances are not essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interests in order and morality [(Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 572 (1942), Bernas p. 95]
5.Petitioner seeks access to the voting slips accomplished by the individual members of the Censorship Board.It is on basis of the voting slips that films are banned, cut or classified accordingly. Chairman Morato, however, claims that the voting slips partake of the “nature of conscience votes “ and as such, are purely and completely private and personal. It is the submission of the respondent that the individual voting slip is the exclusive property of the member concerned and anybody who wants access thereto must first secure his (member’s) consent.Decide.

5. 

ANSWER: The action taken by the Chairman violates the right to information on matters of public concern. Decisions made in an official capacity are public and not private matters. (Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato, G.R. No. 92541, Nov. 13, 1991).

6.Respondent Judge allowed access to docket books but only under certain conditions and subject to his control and supervision. Was he guilty of abuse of authority?

ANSWER: No. The right to information on matters of public concern is subject to the limitations imposed by law. Moreover it is subject to reasonable regulations for the convenience of and order in the office that has custody of the documents (Baldoza v. Judge Dimaano, A.M. 1120 MTJ, May 5, 1976).

7.A land buyer buys a lot with an annotated lien that the lot owner becomes an automatic member of the homeowner’s association. Does such annotation violate the right freely to join or not to join associations?

ANSWER: No.The fact that the obligation is annotated in the title does notmake it a government act forcing one to join an association. Rather the buyer freely buys the lot knowing that the purchase will entail an obligation [(Bel-air v. Dionisio, 174 SCRA 589 (1989)].

RIGHT TO Counsel:

8.Is the right to have counsel present during investigation intended to stop the accused from saying anything that may incriminate him?

A: No. The right to counsel is intended to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false. The lawyer, however, should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth (Pp. v. Layuso, G.R. No. 69210, Jul 5, 1989).

9. Accused was made to undergo a paraffin test of his hands to determine whether he had recently fired a gun. Accused claims violation of his constitutional right, as it was not conducted in the presence of his lawyer. Decide.

A: This constitutional right extends only to testimonial compulsion and not when the body of the accused is proposed to be examined as in the case (PP. v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 91374, Feb. 25, 1991).

10. Police Officer John invited Tulio in connection with the death of Sander and two other robbery cases reported in Lucena City.During their conversation Tulio explicitly recounted what had transpired regarding Sander’s death. Is the narration of Tulio admissible as evidence against him?

A: The narration is inadmissible. The prohibition is reinforced in R.A. 7438 whichprotects the rights of persons under custodial investigation … as including the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed (PP. V. Tan G.R. No. 117321, Feb. 11, 1998).

11.While in police custody, the accused verbally and spontaneously admitted his guilt and pointed out the mastermind of the robbery. Is his statement admissible as evidence?

ANSWER: Yes, because constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused orally admitted having committed the crime—as in the case at bar. (Pp. v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 112035, Jan. 16, 1995).

12.While in the custody for violation of Dangerous DrugsAct, the accused, unassisted by counsel, wrote his name on the rolled marijuana cigarettes that had been seized from him. Are the marked cigarettes admissible in evidence?

ANSWER: No. Accused’s act of writing his name on the cigarettes amounted to an admission of his culpability without the assistance of counsel. The cigarettes are inadmissible. (Pp. v. Enrique Jr. GR. No. 90738, Dec. 8, 1991).

13.Convicted of robbery with homicide by the RTC, Manuel argues that the victim’s wallet should be inadmissible as evidence because the investigating policeman did not inform him of his constitutional rights during the custodial investigation wherein he pointed out to them the place where he hid the wallet. Decide.

A: Infractions of the Miranda rights render inadmissible only the extrsajudicial confession or admission made during the custodial investigation. The admissibility of other evidence, provided, they are relevant to the issue is not otherwise excluded by the law or ruels is not affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation.(Pp. v. Malimit, G.R. No. 109775, Nov. 14, 1996).

14.May a judge who replaces another judge validly render a decision although he has only partly heard the testimony of witnesses?

A: Yes. It is based on practical consideration. It is sufficient that in such circumstances the judge, in deciding the case, must base it completely on the cold record before him, in the same manner as appellate courts do when they review the evidence of the case raised before to them on appeal (Pp. v. Narajos 149 SCRA 99; Villanueva v. Estenzo, 64 scra 407).

15.What are the requisites of a valid trial in absentia?
A: The accused has already been arraigned; he has been duly notified of the trial andhis failure to appear is unjustifiable.[(Parada v. Veneracion, AM. RTJ-96-1353, March 11, 1997; Pp. v. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (1896)]

16.After an inordinate number of postponements on motion of the accused because of the absence of his counsel, counsel once more for no justifiable reason absents himself. Thejudge denies further postponement. Accused now claims that the judge should at least have appointed a counsel de oficio. Decide.

A: The duty of the courtt to appoint a cousel de oficio when the accused has no counsel of choice and desire to employ the services of one is mandatory at the time of arraigment. This is no longer so where the accused has proceeded with the arraignment and the trial with a counssel of his choice but when the time for the defense has arrived, he appears by himself alone and the absence of his counsel was inexcusable. [(Sayson v. People, 166 SCRA 680(1988)]

17.May a government officer whose office is under investigation refuse to testify when cited as witness in connection with a fact-finding investigation of anomalies in the city government with the object of  filing corresponding charges?

A: No, because the officer is not yet facing any administrative charge (Evangelista v Jarencio, 68 SCRA 99), Nov. 29, 1975).

18. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty and immediately moved to quash the complaint on the ground that it charged no offense. The motion was granted. Subsequently, an amended complaint was filed. Is there double jeopardy?

A: No, because the defective complaint did not place the accused in first jeopardy. (Pp. v. Judge Consulta, L-41251, March 31, 1976).

19.The accused was charged in the Municipal Trial Court for an offense, which is cognizable, by the Regional Trial Court.He moved for the dismissal of the case, which was granted. The same case later was filed before the proper RTC.He then moves for the dismissal of the same case, on the ground of double jeopardy. Decide.

A: The defense is not proper. Since the first court had no jurisdiction, the accused was not in first jeopardy before the MTC.

20.Andoy Pordoy is accused before the Municipal Trial Court. After plea, the prosecution asks for dismissal on the ground that the muncipal trial court has no jurisdiction. Accused opposed the motion but the judge dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. It turned out, however, that the municipal court has jurisdiction. The case was refiled with the MTC and the accused pleaded double jeopardy. Decide.

A: The defense is not proper because the dismissal was without the express consent of the accused.

21.Charged with inflicting physical injuries that would require 5 to 9 days of medical attendance, the accused was convicted. Subsequently, when the victim developed a permanent scar and deformity on the face, a more serious charge was filed. Is there double jeopardy?

A: No. The scar and deformity were supervening facts not in existence at the time of the first charge and could not have been foreseen (Pp. v. Adil, L-41863, April 25, 1977).

22. After trial on the merits,  the accused was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence against him in the cases for murder and frustrated murder and on the finding, in the illegal carrying of firearms, that the act charged did no constitute a violation of law. The State through a petition for certiorari would want his acquittal reversed. Is certiorari proper?

A: Certiorari is improper. Errors of judgment cannot be corrected by certiorari which is proper only on “grave abuse of discretion” or lack of jurisdiction. No error, however flagrant, committed by the court against the state, can be reversed by it. (Bernas Primer, p. 230).

23.Pursuant to R.A. No. 7975, the Sandiganbayan transferred the KuratongBaleleng case to the RTC for lack of jurisdiction.R.A. No. 8249 amended R.A. No. 7975 in further defining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Pursuant to the new Act, the Sandiganbayan took cognizance of the case. Petitioner and intervenors argue that the statute’s retroactive application to the Kuratong Baleleng case constitutes an ex post facto law for it deprives them of their right to procedural due process as they can no longer avail of the two-tiered appeal which they had allegedly acquired under R.A. 7975.Decide.

A: In general, ex post facto law prohibits restrospectivity of penal laws.R.A. No. 8249 is not a penal law, but a substantial law on jurisdiction, which is not penal in character. The contention that the law diluted their right to a two-tiered appeal is incorrect because the right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory in nature that can be regulated by law. The mode of procedure   provided for in the statutory right of appeal is not included in the prohibition against ex post facto law.R.A. No. 8249 pertains only to matters of procedure, and being merely an amendatory statute it does not partake the nature of an ex post facto law.(Lacson v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, Jan. 20, 1999).

24.On June 6, 1997, R.A. No. 8294 amended P.D. No. 1866, which codified the laws on illegal possessin of firearms. Among its amendments was that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use should be considered as a special aggravating circumstance. The amendment meant: first, that the use of the unlicensed firearm in the commission of homicide or murder shall not be treated as a separate offense, but as a special aggravating circumstance; second, that since a single crime is committed (i.e. homicide or murder with aggravating circumstnace of illegal possesion of firearm), only one penalty shall be imposed on the accused. Accused was charged with crimes committed in 1995.Will R.A. No. 8294 be applicable to him?

A: Yes, because it is favorable to him. (Pp. v. Casingal, G.R. No. 132214, Aug. 1, 2000).

THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020 ] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAUL DEL ROSARIO Y NIEBRES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 235658, June 22,  2020  ] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAUL DEL ROSARIO Y NIEBRES, ACCUSED...